wallet_recover_marketplace

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the operation signs only and never dispatches a payment retry. It omits permission requirements, whether signing consumes the retained attempt, idempotency, and any side effects on local state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and its key safety caveat after the semicolon. No filler, though the dense domain phrasing trades some clarity for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a signing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves too much open: what the signed request is for, what the agent should do with it, and how to source quoteId are all unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter quoteId is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'locally retained Marketplace attempt' loosely implies the identifier refers to a stored attempt, but the required 0x-prefixed 64-hex format and where to obtain the value are not addressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb (sign) and resource (payer recovery request) scoped to a 'locally retained Marketplace attempt', which sets it apart from siblings like wallet_marketplace_attempts. The multi-clause qualifier and jargon ('payer recovery request') keep it from being instantly self-evident, but the purpose is derivable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the 'locally retained Marketplace attempt' qualifier narrows when this applies, and 'never sends a payment retry' excludes one nearby behavior. No sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.